Transfer policy - Update and seeking comments

[Wisdom Donkor]

That will be great Bruna.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022, 11:02 pm Bruna Martins dos Santos, <
bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:

> Would Owen be willing to join the NCSG membership meeting at ICANN 74 so
> we can have a small discussion on that ?! What do you think ?
>
> Best,
> B
>
>
> On Fri 15. Apr 2022 at 00:35, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Farzaneh,
>>
>> Thanks for the update.
>> Yes this language seems better while not bullet-proof and I assume abuse
>> defined by ICANN policy implies going through PDP or having something
>> existing already. Maybe reference to what exists would be helpful. I take
>> the context of current discussion of DNS abuse and what it means later. For
>> registrars own policy, they can set their own ToS of course.
>> Yes any engagement with registrars and discussion with Owen is welcome.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 03:25 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Glenn and Rafik, thank you so much for your responses.
>>>
>>> I joined the small team that is focussing on this wording and told them
>>> we think the reasons have to be listed. They resisted it and came up with
>>> this language:
>>>
>>>
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    3.x The Registrar of Record MAY deny a transfer request only in the
>>>    following specific instances:
>>>    -
>>>
>>>       3.7.1 Evidence of fraud [or, abuse as defined by the registrar or
>>>       ICANN policy] [, or willful/malicious violation of the registration
>>>       agreement].
>>>       -
>>>
>>>          Owen’s suggestion: Evidence of fraud or violation of the
>>>          registration agreement or ICANN policy.
>>>
>>> So effectively they got rid of "abuse" and added registration agreement
>>> or ICANN policy. I am uncomfortable with "fraud" still being there but I
>>> prefer Owen's suggestion. Owen mentioned that he would be willing to talk
>>> to those interested to explain further.  (Owen is a rep from registrars
>>> stakeholder group)
>>>
>>> As to the transfer fee, apparently there are some registrars that charge
>>> some fee but transfer should not be blocked for that reason so we will look
>>> after that.
>>>
>>> There was a helpful feedback about this on the list:
>>>
>>>
>>> *"9. My registrar is charging me a fee to transfer to a new registrar.
>>> Is this allowed?*
>>> *Yes. Registrars are allowed to set their own prices for this service so
>>> some may choose to charge a fee. However, a transfer cannot be denied due
>>> to non-payment of this transfer fee. There are other reasons your registrar
>>> can deny transfer request.*
>>>
>>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-holder-faqs-2017-10-10-en
>>>
>>> I do not think many registrars do this, and it is likely generally when
>>> tied to other services (e.g. hosting or as part of brand protection). I
>>> recall at least one case when I was at ICANN Compliance where Compliance
>>> required the registrar to transfer the domain name even though the transfer
>>> out fee was not paid (it even resulted in a notice of breach)."
>>>
>>>
>>> I think we should still observe this issue as the group progresses and
>>> try and provide some certainty around the issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 5:31 PM Glenn Ricart <gricart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would think that if a registrar is seeing "abuse," they'd be happy to
>>>> get rid of the name and the trouble it's causing.
>>>> So, "abuse" wouldn't seem to be a valid reason; if it is a valid
>>>> reason, the valid reason needs a better name than "abuse."
>>>>
>>>> Glenn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 8:52 AM farzaneh badii <
>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear NCSG,
>>>>>
>>>>> I along with Wisdom are your reps on  the Transfer policy working
>>>>> group. A lot of operational matters (which I shared with you some time ago)
>>>>> but now two distinct topics are being discussed that I want to seek your
>>>>> advice on:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Hefty transfer fee: apparently some domain name registrants have
>>>>> faced hefty transfer fees when trying to transfer. How should we solve this
>>>>> problem? It doesn't look like there is a policy for fee control I don't
>>>>> even think that is possible in this group, but do you think there has to be
>>>>> a clause somewhere that mentions that transfer fee should ideally not exist
>>>>> or be waived or the registrant should be told about the transfer fee before
>>>>> they register? How should we go about this? This causes some competition
>>>>> issues as well since registrars can discourage people from transferring by
>>>>> exerting hefty fees.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Adding abuse: one of the reasons to deny transfer is "fraud". It is
>>>>> not very clear what is meant by that but now ICANN org suggested that there
>>>>> should be some addition to fraud because registrars sometimes deny transfer
>>>>> because of abuse too. Abuse is a loaded term and includes many things. Most
>>>>> registries and registrars are in favor of adding abuse as a ground to deny
>>>>> transfer. we don't agree because it is too loaded. We mentioned perhaps you
>>>>> can say because of violation of registration agreement but some argue that
>>>>> violation of registration agreement includes too many items some that are
>>>>> not even in ICANN mission and it is too broad. I think that is a good
>>>>> argument but now I don't have a solution or an alternative to abuse. What
>>>>> do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Identification v Ownership: this comes up in many ICANN policy
>>>>> discussions. People think in order to verify ownership they have to
>>>>> "identify" the domain name registrant. I am sceptical and find it even a
>>>>> dangerous concept. I think there might be ways to verify ownership without
>>>>> identification. Or at least not bring the "identification" issues to ICANN.
>>>>> This is what I have been paying attention to always making sure that we
>>>>> don't have "identification" where we don't need it. If you have any
>>>>> comments on that please let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. I can't attend the meetings regularly but I will send updates as
>>>>> much as I can when it comes to important decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>
>>>> --
>
> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>
> German Chancellor Fellow 21' (Bundeskanzler-Stipendiatin) | Alexander von
> Humboldt Foundation <https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/>
>
> Visiting Researcher (Gastwissenschaftlerin) | Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin
> für Sozialforschung (WZB) <https://wzb.eu/en>
>
> Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
> Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg>
> Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus  <https://igcaucus.org/>
>
> Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype:
> bruna.martinsantos
> *bruna.martinsdossantos at wzb.eu <bruna.martinsdossantos at wzb.eu>* and
> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20220418/5679b1b0/attachment.htm>